In Quest of Meaining: Narrative and (Un)reliability in Ian McEwan's Enduring Love and Atonement

1

M. Tseperka

In quest of meaning: Narrative and

(un)reliability in Ian McEwan’s

3

In quest of meaning: Narrative and

(un)reliability in Ian McEwan’s

Enduring

Love

and

Atonement

By

M. Tseperka

s2069733

July 14

₂₀₂₀

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Media Studies

in Cultural Analysis: Literature and Theory

at Leiden University,

5

Abstract

In this thesis I will discuss the notion of unreliability in the narratological environment of Ian McEwan’s novels Enduring Love and Atonement, in relation with the formalism theory and a cognitive approach, respectively. The effects of traumatic experiences along with the concept of memory as an unreliable narrator will be considered as focal points in my analysis. In McEwan’s novels what constitute an unreliable narrator are his specific characteristics derived from the personality of the fictional character/narrator and the narratological setting. The research questions examined are how narrative is used as a way of making sense of the world, which narratological techniques in the aforementioned novels result in unreliability, and what the effects of unreliability are for the characters and the reader.

6

Acknowledgements

7

Contents

Introduction

... 9

Modes of Narration and Unreliability in “Enduring Love”

... 14

Opening Remarks

... 14

Formalism Concepts and Unreliability in Narrative

... 15

Modes of Narrative

... 18

Unreliability in Narrative

... 22

Closing Remarks

... 24

A Cognitive Narratological Approach on Ian McEwan's Atonement

... 26

Opening Remarks

... 26

Cognitive Narratology and Unreliability

... 27

The Problematic of Unreliability in Atonement

... 34

Closing Remarks

... 37

Conclusion

... 40

9

Introduction

Narratology as a branch of literary theory examines and studies how a story is shaped. Narratologists, as literary theorists, focus on understanding and deciphering the structure and application of the author's narrative strategies that allow them to fit together to tell a story, in a way that combines all the individual elements and options into a single aesthetic whole (Cliff , 2007, pp 62).Although most people interested in a literary language know that narratology as a branch of literary theory is mainly related to the studies and research of Russian formalists and French constructors, it has not been sufficiently understood that the narratological methods stemming from these theoretical schools have not lost their relevance and value. Later theorists have evolved the tools of narratology and clearly defined the relationship between literature, social structure, and reading, without undermining the primary role of the text and the understanding of the work as an autonomous entity.

Studies that began in France in the late 1950s distinguished the narrative from the other forms of speech, with the result that narratology developed as an autonomous branch of literary theory, to separate it from, rhetoric, and stylistics (Herman , 1999). The aim of the first direction of narratology, is to study the techniques used to develop the temporal structure of the story, perspective, form of speech, narrator's position, inflection, and verb voice. The second direction of narratology is semiotics, which aims to presents the underlying semantic structure inherent in the content of the literary text (Fludernick , 2007, pp36-59). This version of narratology is a form of literary semiotics that influences all fields of science because it introduced a revolutionary way of exploring narrative texts (Dancygier , 2012).

The impetus for preoccupation and reflection on narrative discourse was given by Russian Formalism (1915-1930), which was expanded by structuralism and semiotics of the 1960’s by Marxism's historical and sociological view, as an attempt to apply to literature the methods of the founder of modern structural linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure (Cain, E. William and A. Laurie). However, the theory of narration is placed in ancient times and, more specifically, in the Platonic State (imitation, narration) and Aristotelian Poetry (myth = plot) (Leszl , 2017, pp245-336).

The Russian formalists gave form and shape to the narrative theory, approaching the textual environment with more scientific literary devices offering a close reading regarding the structure, the form, and the semiotics, which refers to the understanding of the operation of the text. In other words, priority was given to aesthetic creation on which their relevant reflection was based. Although initially, the two schools -formalism and structuralism- were at odds with each other, they then followed a familiar path to achieving common goals (Toolan , 2006, pp459-473). The main link between formalism and modern structuralism was the work of the Russian linguist formalist Roman Jakobson, who contributed significantly to the study of poetry, which he perceived as part of linguistics (a poetic function of language). He believed that words were combined to convey patterns of resemblance, opposition, parallelism that resulted from their sound, their meaning, their rhythm, and their co-indicative meanings (Cain, E. William and A. Laurie 2010).

10

literary work is an autonomous system and seek to describes its narrative elements, place, characters, and action, to understand the structures and reach the essence of the story (Min and Park , 2019).

There are two different ways of approaching narrative. Palmer in his research, discusses narrative more as a way of thinking, while for the participants in the narrative procedure, meaning the writer, the reader and the fictional characters, narrative is considered as a way of understanding and explaining the world. In this thesis, I aim to study narrative as a means of interpretation of life’s, mainly traumatic, experiences, and as a way of communication among the people. I suggest that, both narrative as a thinking process, and narrative as an interpretational tool, derive from the same origin, which is the cognitive state of people’s mind. Narrative, either as a way of thinking, or as a way of perceiving, is a function of the human mind, and every procedure with regards to it, occurs inside our mind. In Ian McEwan’s novels, Enduring Love and Atonement, the characters use narrative in order to make sense of their life. In both cases, narrative is a process of remembering and re-experiencing central events in their life trying to understand them and consequently to recover or atone from their trauma or their sufferings. In other words, the act of narrating is linked to psychological reasoning describing the human need to shape experience and face reality. Some attribute to narrative the virtues of a testimony, and how it helps people to reconcile and find inner peace. Moreover, in many cases, fictional narrative is the only way to approach the ineffable, such as the balloon accident in

Enduring Love, or a child’s sexual abuse in Atonement. McEwan also seems to be in consistence with the

above, since his fictional characters, in one way or another, share connections with literature engaging the act of narrative in their daily life. In the analysis of this thesis, I attempt to answer the questions of narrative as a way of making sense of the world and of interpreting our experiences and relationships in it. Further, I aim to answer how the notion of unreliability has been structured as a narratological tool in McEwan’s Enduring Love and Atonement, and to explore its effects on the participants in the narrative process, namely, the reader and the fictional characters.

11

Briony builds her unreliable narration affecting the course of events by lying to the reader and by destructing her surroundings in the novel.

In terms of cognitive narratology, the selected approach to study the Atonement, also regards the field of literature as the natural environment for narrative (Manfred 1997, pp441-468). For instance, the main characters in Enduring Love, Clarissa Melon and Joe Rose, have created a special connection, over the years, with the narrating process due to their professions - Clarissa is a literature professor in the university, and Joe is a scientist who is occupied as a writer in a scientific journal- where they have acquired an analytical way of thinking. Joe and Clarissa in the novel are presented as a couple, who makes use of different modes of narrative in their daily communication, such the form of dialogue, letters, and storytelling, quite often in their relationship. For example, their long conversations after dinner, and their discussions about their day in work, to communicate and connect with each other, and to resolve things. Furthermore, in the climax of the novel, all characters, Clarissa, Joe, and Jed Parry use narrative in their attempt to understand the inexplicable incident, to come to terms with an unknown appalling reality, and to familiarize again with life, themselves, and the others. In Atonement, although the characters also use narrative as a means of communication and interpretation, they often misread each other’s feelings and intentions. They write letters to each other trying to avoid miscommunication, to explain themselves, and finally to reach an understanding.

12

Similarly, in Atonement, the main character, and the narrator of the novel, Briony, undergoes a traumatic experience considering the innocence that accompanies her youth. After witnessing an intimate intercourse between her sister, Cecilia, and her childhood friend, Robbie, she invents a lie to temporarily escape the appalling reality. I will approach narrator’s unreliability in a cognitive approach as it is depicted, mainly, in the research studies of Herman, Bamberg, and Phelan. Herman explores narrative as a way of thinking and communicating in order to comprehend human life. In addition, he supported, among others, the interdisciplinary studies and literature’s association with other scientific fields such as psychology, linguistics, and sociology (Herman 1999). Bamberg’s research also focuses on conversational narrative within its social context, offering insights to understand fictional characters’ personalities by forming their identities, and to further explore the relationships among them (Bamberg 2005, pp213-267). Phelan discusses the metafiction in McEwan’s novel examining its use and its effects. He suggests a demanding reading to decode Briony’s narrative within McEwan’s, and that this metanarrative level complexes the narration mirroring Briony’s cognitive state, who frequently mistakes reality with fiction (Phelan 2007). Briony’s mode of narrative, and the layers added by the numerous perspectives in the novel and by the flashbacks, confuses the reader and delays the revelation of the truth and the atonement.

Overall, in McEwan’s novels the act of narrative through storytelling is a dominant concept. In both of his novels the characters experience a traumatic event which impacted the rest of their lives, and they try to escape it. Through narrative they re-evaluate their relationships and life itself. As post traumatic effects, the characters lose their center, and their relationships with their beloved tested in a crisis. In order to make sense of their surroundings and to survive the crisis, the characters create stories from their memory’s fragments regarding the traumatic events in order to come to terms with the world, to reveal the truth to the reader, and to atone for their own actions and decisions. In Atonement, Briony seems to face two different traumatic occurrences. Firstly, she is traumatized by the unpleasant early experience of accidentally witnessing her sister during a sexual intercourse, and secondly she is further traumatized by the premature unexpected loss of her sister, which blocks her chance to atone for her lie and get Cecilia and Robbie’s forgiveness.

14

Modes of Narration and Unreliability in

“Enduring Love”

Opening Remarks

In this chapter of my thesis I will venture a formalistic narratological approach, applying the core values of

this theory to Ian McEwan’s novel Enduring Love. I will use the notions of point of view/focalization to discuss

the reliability and unreliability in the literary narrative. Therefore, I will attempt to give an overall account

regarding focalization as a narrative technique as it has been introduced by Genette, and how it further evolved

in several studies by literary critics and analysts. In this chapter, I will additionally consider the aforementioned

term according to Bal’s theory as a component of the story of the narrative text. Moreover, I will include the aspects of the matter as they have been developed in the work of Patrick O’Neill, “Points of Origin: On Focalization in Narrative” (O'Neil , 1992, pp331-351). Developing these theories according to this novel, I aim

to answer the questions of how the notion of unreliability is constructed and underlined within the narration, and

what the effect of this is. Thus, I suggest that unreliability is derived from several internal workings within the

narration, such as the first-person narrator and the playful usage of focalization. Concluding, I will support that

with these narratological techniques and by using different modes of narration, the writer does not strive for

presenting the one absolute truth related to only one supposedly “right” perspective, whether that is scientific,

literary, or religious oriented. Instead McEwan wishes, through a focus on different view angles, to investigate

the narrative process itself.

Structuring the chapter, I will first offer an introduction to the novel by presenting the characters and the plot.

I will then discuss three aspects derived from formalism theory, namely, the literariness of the text, the concept

of de-familiarization in narrative and the theory of dominance, introduced by Roman Jakobson -in relation to

this novel (Cain, et al., 2010). In order to gain a deeper knowledge of McEwan’s characters, of how each of

them comprehends the world around them, and of how they relate to one another, I will present their

perspectives on the main events in the novel. Furthermore, I will employ the theory of focalization in the

narration of Enduring Love, with an emphasis on Genette, narrative and the focalized subject. I suggest that

focalization demystifies and provides a more detailed approach on the narrative; as in this novel, where the “I”

mode of narration has increased possibilities of outshining the rest of the characters’ angles of vision for the

reader. Lastly, I will suggest that perspectives do not only vary among different people, but rather they are

functions of the mind expressed through innumerable ways of thinking that a person acquired throughout his

life.

These different perspectives of life derived from peoples’ background and experiences constitute the structure of our thoughts. Thus, I will introduce the characters’, their occupation, and their relationships in order to further

understand the impact of their life experiences on the various ways of thinking presented in this novel. The main

15

Mellon, a literature professor. They are in a long-term, but childless relationship. The story begins with the

carefree picnic day for the couple being interrupted by an air balloon accident. Along with other witnesses of the

accident, Joe puts all his efforts to save a little boy who is inside the wagon of the balloon. Despite their efforts,

the balloon gets detached from the ground and flies into the sky (McEwan, 2004). One man cannot let the rope

off his hands, resulting into his fall and his senseless death. Among this companionship, there is a man named

Jed Parry, who after a glance that he exchanges with Joe, gets convinced about Joe’s affection towards him.

Now everyone is trying to make sense of the horrifying event and subsequently of their own life. Back home,

Joe and Clarissa strive to cope up with this unfortunate evening through narrative by retelling the story from

their memories. Later that night Joe receives a phone call by Jed Parry, who is letting him know that he

understands Joe and that they share a mutual love. The days that follow, Jed’s presence in Joe’s and Clarissa’s

lives becomes disturbing through several phone calls and letters that are all addressed to Joe. Jed has persuaded

himself about Joe’s love and for that reason, he declares to be obligated to return the feelings by bringing God in Joe’s life (McEwan, 2004) (Roth, 2009).

The reader follows the overgrowing obsession between Jed Parry and Joe resulting in an antagonistic, love

and hate relationship among the two men as they both drawing deeper and deeper in this overwhelming

situation. Clarissa is worried about her partner’s point of view and the way he handles the events happening

related to Jed. She starts doubting that Jed even exists while she is alarmed about Joe’s state of mind. Joe

believes that Jed suffers from de Clérambault’s syndrome; a mental disease where a woman is convinced about

the King’s love feelings towards her and will stare at the palace waiting for him to send her his royal love

(Palmer, 2009). Joe is assured that his and Clarissa’s life are in danger and seeks protection by acquiring a gun

from a former friend for self-defense. Meanwhile, he receives a phone call learning that Jed holds Clarissa in

their home, threatening her with a knife. Once Joe gets home, he tries to calm Jed down through reason. Jed sets

Clarissa free but hurts himself. After his attempted suicide, Jed is being held in a mental hospital from where he

is trying to reach Joe through written letters. However, his attempts fail since the hospital never sends them out

in order to keep Joe and Clarissa safe and calm. The couple now lives together again and adopts a child. In the

appendix of the novel, the writer presents research of a case study on the Clerambault’s syndrome and provides

doctors’ and psychologists’ signed positions in order to strengthen the validity of his story (McEwan, 2004).

Formalism Concepts and Unreliability in Narrative

A formalistic literary analysis has been chosen to be applied on this novel venturing a combination of selected

methods and tools of formalism theory with the narratological unreliability. Formalism was the first school in

literary criticism to approach literature in a scientific basis free from the mystical atmosphere and the sediment

of modernism. In other words, formalists are pioneers in close reading and in applying scientific methods of

analysis on an artifact (Cain, et al., 2010). Due to this scientific perspective, formalists were more interested in a

16

their analysis to be effective, inspired by scientific techniques and tools, they invented their own appropriate

devices to apply in art and in literature in particular, such as the technique of de-familiarization, the concept of

dominance, and the theme along with the motifs as part of it (Cain, et al., 2010). By choosing the

aforementioned devices to approach the novel, I attempt to suggest that they complement the unreliability I

discuss regarding the novel’s narrative. For example, through de-familiarization the traumatic nature of the events is underlined shocking this way characters’ perspective for their surroundings, an outcome that generates

vulnerable and unreliable thinking process. Similarly, the concept of dominance also attributes to the notion of

unreliability since it is tied together with the prominent use of a first-person narrator weakening the objectivity

in the novel. Moreover, the dyadic nature of the theme of an enduring love also is in alliance with the

narratological unreliability since it provokes reader’s wondrous mind by suggesting different ways of reading. In

other words, the novel instead of offering answers and solutions complicates the events in a manner that the

readers and the protagonists will lead to resort in different narratological modes as an ongoing process of

thinking and understanding. In the analysis that follows I will further explain those techniques and methods that

are applicable on Ian McEwan’s novel, Enduring Love.

Regarding the notion of de-familiarization, one of the characteristic scenes within the narration is the scene

with the balloon accident, a life changing experience for the characters. Ian McEwan chose to start his novel

with this traumatic event which is the beginning of every minor or major aspect of the plot. In other words, it is

the starting point or rather it is the plot itself since it introduces the main thematic question of the role of

narrative in our perception of reality. Additionally, it is inserting the question of the use of narrative in an

attempt to make sense of the world and deal with a traumatic experience. The aftereffects for the trauma

survivors are the creation of a whole new perspective making this way an outstanding point for the notion of

familiarization in the sense that the post traumatic effect of a change in character and in point of view

de-familiarizes the participants from everything reliable and familiar their life. That is the reason why Joe, for

example, while processing the event loses part of himself drowning in an obsessed connection with Jed, or for

instance, that is why Jed is convinced, after the event, that it is not only him that has to be a devotee God but

that he also needs to recruit and convince Joe about their supposedly sharing love which appears through Jed

letters almost identical to the way God taught love. After having experienced such a traumatic event, individuals

usually undergo extreme stress levels, which demand dealing with a whole new, unexpected, and unfamiliar

situation. A traumatic encounter raises the question of meaning in life to such an extent that people grow

frighten and unsettled changing their worldview (Tuval-Mashiach, Freedman and Bargai , 2004, pp1-16). The

reader becomes a witness and receiver of agony and horror from the description of the balloon accident. By

making the choice of a balloon accident that leads to a tragic death, the writer achieves what is known in

formalism as the concept of de-familiarization (Cain, et al., 2010). The cleverness of the writer to compose such

a scene and the weirdness of the nature of the accident are intriguing for the reader’s curiosity. McEwan does

17

surprises the reader with a horrific event that most people’s mind cannot even capture. It is exactly the eerie

nature of the accident and its effect on people’s feelings that through the uniqueness and cleverness of this

caption the unreliability is now triggered as an unstable perception of the world for the protagonists. This is a

technique used in art in order to make things and concepts of life unfamiliar so as the reader to see it from an

unconventional perspective this time and achieve a prolonged perception (Pinotti , 2013, pp75-90). McEwan

forces the reader and the characters in the novel to face a familiar concept for people’s nature, the concept of

death under very unusual and different circumstances. De-familiarizing the concept of death fueled a series of

events where characters’ minds and consciousness challenge their limits.

Both the aforementioned technique of de-familiarization and the following concept of dominance are treated

within this analysis in a manner that unreliability in narration is underlined. Additionally, both concepts are

presented as tools within a narratological environment where the characters are struggling in the process of

making sense of traumatic events. Thus, Roman Jakobson’s concept of dominance, which is considered to be a

major and a productive concept in Russian Formalist theory, is being considered since it is notably beneficial in

the construction of the novel (Cain, et al., 2010). The dominant as the focusing component on the literary text,

determines and transforms the remaining minor components but all together shape a whole in order to offer and

convey meaning.

Accordingly, I would argue that the main dominant elements in terms of the content are the enduring love as

the title indicates along with the first-person narrator throughout the story. McEwan discusses in this novel

about enduring love, in other words about love not as a static constant feeling but as a force which is dynamic

enough to lead in life changing experiences (Rogers, 2014). The reader of the novel becomes the witness of two

different kinds of love, both however enduring. A conventional positive one presented to the reader via the

caring relationship between Joe and Clarissa and an unconventional negative one, presented via the overgrowing

obsession between Jed and Joe. However, both the obsession and the caring love, transform characters’ relation

into a dynamic moving force, able to alter everything around them, themselves and even the plot. McEwan

employs here the double meaning of the word enduring to indicate that love through its motivation and

movement can be either something that lasts or it can be a negative feeling that deteriorates peoples’

relationships and becomes haunting and unbearable (Rogers, 2014).The meaning that the adjective “enduring”

poses to the word love, as a feeling, underlines the unreliability of the binary nature of it in the narration. This

duality reintroduces the term love from a different view angle questioning what it was so far commonly

perceived as love within humans and creating instability by attaching a different provocative sense in this word.

It is disturbing, for example that the term has been selected within the narration as the selected way to describe

Jed and Joe’s relationship, while on the other hand, it is also disappointing when referring to Clarissa and Joe’s

love to the extent that their relationship has been transformed in insecuriness and mistrust.

So, in both cases the word love bears an ironic sense in the title and in the narration. In other words, the theme

18

ways of reading. Moving further to the dominant components of the novel, I would suggest the first-person

narrator to be one of them since this form of narration is being maintained almost through the entire novel. Joe

as narrator has the major influence upon the events, however, I would argue that he is also the most influenced

one; he is the person to undergo extreme changes in his psyche inner world. The narrator here not only can

affect the parts of the story, but rather can also be the governor of the other characters thoughts and feelings

since he is placed between the plot and the reader. An obsessed relationship and the concept of the “I” narration

are extremely influential in the development of the plot and become the forces that move the characters further,

help them to evolve and to dictate their next move (Bal, 1997). The “I” mode of narration seems a priori

unreliable since its functionality overshadows the objectivity in narration.

Modes of Narrative

The theme in Enduring Love is how people, or rather society, deals with love and death by presenting in the

novel various ways of explaining the world. I suggest society, because I propose that the three characters

namely, Joe, Clarissa, and Jed, represent three different pillars of the modern society. Joe is the rationalist one

who seeks for a scientific oriented interpretation and longs for an absolute, objective reality, Clarissa, as a

Literature PhD researcher and teacher, influenced and characterized by her field of studies, is the romantic and

literary interpretation of life, and finally, Jed Parry represents the religious approach in the life events.

The idea of narrating and reading indicates the various points of views operating like lenses through them;

people perceive life differently creating various different ways on how to retell a story resulting in different

modes of narration (Genette, 1980). For instance, Joe as a scientist portrays his belief that the event is an

accident attributed to chance through a scientific narrative. Clarissa as an English literature professor holds a

more romantic sense of our surroundings. Jed on the other hand, believes that everything around us has been

determined from fate which he calls God and he is a believer of God’s bigger plan for people; just like this

accident, which happened for Jed and Joe to meet and join together the path of God’s love. Thus, they all have

their own way to perceive and explain life itself and each of them represents one way of understanding this

world.

However, the reader does not follow equally the aforementioned perspectives, since there is only one narrator

and that is Joe who speaks of science (Rogers, 2014). Nevertheless, despite the dominance of the scientific

method in the narration, the reader is still able to sense what the writer wishes to designate through the

focalization in the narration of the other perspectives as well. By presenting different modes of narrative,

McEwan aims to help the reader understand the usefulness of narrative as a method of perceiving and

understanding the events take place in our life, without excluding any possible approach, but rather he

encourages a collaboration of narratological modes depending on the context. Nonetheless, he votes for the

19

Joe Rose, the protagonist of the novel, is the main narrator of the events taking place and of the other

characters’ thoughts and feelings. In a first person narration the reader actually has a limited point of view as they follow plot’s development exclusively from one perspective (Bal, 1997). The “I” narration in terms of the

language means that a technical vocabulary and the type of language provided by the narrator is dominant

throughout the entire novel (Bal, 1997). To exemplify, Joe Rose being a former failed research scientist himself

and a current writer of scientific subjects, addresses the reader by using scientific vocabulary or methods (facts,

logic, and reason) to describe the events taking place in the novel. Eventually, this extremely specific way of

expression, also leads to limited perception of the reader. Joe who is the science representative, throughout the

novel tries to deal with the unfortunate balloon accident that caused John Logan’s death with rationalism. The reader follows Joe’s thoughts while he is searching for reasoning behind the tragedy. He finds John Logan’s

action, who decided not to let go the rope of the balloon until the end, which cost him his life, totally

inexplicable, pointless, useless and irrational (McEwan, 2004).

Moreover, Joe not only has to deal with the weirdness of this death, but he also needs to deal with the feeling

of guilt that he carries after the balloon accident. There is only one main thought that occupies his mind now,

and that is, who first let the balloon go. Since they formed a team who cooperated to keep the balloon down to

the ground in order to save the boy, one man’s action affected the others’ men effort. Consequently, he believes

this one man, who let the balloon off his hands, is responsible for changing the course of events that caused

John’s death. And all he wishes for now is that he was not the one who let off the ropes of his hands first,

finding consolation in the thought that he did everything possible to save the child and for the rest of the team

(McEwan, 2004). The peak of Joe’s obsession is when he announces to Clarissa his wish to go back into

research field of science, something that Clarissa argues that he had dropped years ago. Joe’s decision to go

back in science is a result of his obsession with Jed, whom he wishes to study as a project. Joe is convinced that

Jed has a condition related to the functions of the mind and he wants to be the researcher of his case in order to

find proof and solution to this threat.

Clarissa, from literature’s point of view, sees things differently than her life partner Joe. She has a more

romantic and sensitive perspective in life, and she needs to believe in people. After returning home from the life

changing accident, she says to Joe that for her, John Logan’s action was an action of bravery and of affection for

children. Being a father himself, John Logan acted under parental instinct which led to his death. Both are

shocked and sad, and they desperately want to feel lively again even though they cannot help but think about

this event repeatedly (McEwan, 2004). In order to deal with this, Clarissa thinks that to love each other and to

take care of their devoting relationship is a mighty solution. In terms of Clarissa’s point of view, Joe, as the “explicit narrator” is the one who retells her perspective to the reader. In this meta- narrative level it becomes evident that when someone transfers another person’s words or thoughts, the point of view never remains the

same (Bal, 1997). Nevertheless, the reader is only able to witnesses the events through Joe’s point of view since

20

eventually results in maintaining his perspective in the other characters’ points of view as well. For example,

when Joe hands Parry’s letters to Clarissa, she observes how much alike their handwritings are; however, Joe

confirms that his friend is right through this fact, albeit from his own point of view (McEwan, 2004).

In account of Jed Parry’s point view, the reader is able to witness it only through Jed’s letters to Joe, otherwise, in the entire narration Joe’s scientific angle is the influential one. Within these letters we can observe Parry’s love and obsession towards Joe. Parry is a believer who apprehends his life through religion’s narrative. He feels the constant present of God and now has set as purpose of his life to bring Joe under God’s love

(McEwan, 2004). However, apart from Jed’s emotional situation and state of mind, we can also sense an

overgrowing obsession in terms of Joe’s relationship to Parry. At this point in the novel, it is exactly when the reader becomes suspicious about Joe’s perspective and Jed’s threatening existence. The events that help grow this suspicion are; Clarissa’s comments about the similarity of the handwritings, the fact that Joe is the only one

to communicate with the reader, and the fact that some events in the novel are presented as if they were

hallucinations of Joe’s. There are several times for example, where Joe and Jed would meet alone, or where Joe

would be the only one to see Jed Parry outside the house and then he would be gone again. Under these

circumstances it seemed like, even Joe would doubt himself about Parry’s appearance in his porch yard,

realizing that Jed Parry is not the only one who is obsessed (McEwan, 2004). The nature of their encounter and

how this evolved between them reminds us of the two different sides that can be oriented and traced to the

character of one person. It is one “bad” and one “good” self, one rational and one irrational. Joe and Parry share

an antagonistic relationship where only one will prevail, reminding the battles that sometimes one has with

himself.

In relation to the previous perspectives and points of views, I will study the notion of focalization that Genette

launched in order to further clarify the concept of the narrator and his role within the narration (Genette, 1980).

According to formalism, exceptional role has the “literariness” or the artfulness of a text (Cain, et al., 2010).

Literariness makes an art what it is, an aesthetic object lying entirely in its devices. Despite the focus being on

the form of the novel, the text’s internal workings can give important information about the meanings and the writer’s conception (Pinotti, 2012). For instance, internal workings regarding the narration, such as a play with

the mind and the plot of who narrates something, but also who really sees it or feels it, and most importantly

how the reader perceive these treatments from the author and the text. The matters of focalization -who narrates

and who really sees or feels- and that of narratological points of view, consider to be some of these playful

internal workings that complement the literariness of the text. The above, in combination with the narratology,

first-person narration and the different point of view further showcase the unreliable narrator. Genette sensed

that there is a more appropriate question to be posed in the discourse of the narrative theory. To that extend,

Genette proposed a necessarily distinction between “Who speaks?” and “Who sees?” (O'Neil 1992, pp331-350).

In other words, he aimed to a separation of the narrator from the perspective within the environment of an

21

Generally, the discussion on focalization orients two scales, that of the text and that of the narrative. Analysts

like Bal and Rimmon-Kenan, suit focalization on the level of the text, whereas others, on the level of narrative

(O'Neil 1992, pp331-350). Text focalization illustrates how focalization operates, while narrative focalization

raises the questions of “who is to say” or “which narrative agent” (O'Neil 1992, pp331-350). For the purpose of

this chapter, I will be starting from the focalization in the narrative in order to conclude on how focalization is

conducted throughout the text. Detaching the narrator from the concept of focalization, Bal proposes

focalization as a technical term having a strongly manipulative effect on the narration process, on the characters,

and on the reader (Bal, 1997). Focalization is the relation among a character in the story, its environment and

what is seen by a particular character (O'Neil 1992, pp331-350). In addition, it is of great importance for the

analysis to consider that the context of reading determines the perceived focalization. To exemplify, Bal, as

other various literary experts, tries to avoid any identification between the narrator and focalization. The subject

of focalization is called focalizer and within a certain environment in a story, it is possible that the focalizer is

the narrator, since the focalizer is the point of view from which a story is being verbalized through the narrator

(Bal, 1997). Τhere are two distinguished types of focalizer namely, the internal focalizer and the external

focalizer (O'Neil, 1992). An internal focalizer would be a character focalizer, who participates and relates to the

events of a particular story within the narration. An external focalizer on the other hand, is a subject which is

neither connected directly nor participates to the story of a particular time and framework within the narrative

(O'Neil, 1992). In order to familiarize my analysis with the aforementioned terms of focalization, internal, and

external focalizer, I will study sentences as examples from within the novel.

Reading this sentence, “She (Clarissa) said it all again, and repeated the lines from Paradise Lost. Then she

told me (Joe) that she too had willed deliverance, even as he was mid-air” (McEwan 2004, pp29), it is suggested

that Joe is the narrator, and that Clarissa is the subject of focalization, consequently she is the focalizer. More

specifically, Joe speaks (narrates) of what another person, Clarissa, thinks and feels. Therefore, it is a different

person the one who speaks (the narrator), and it is another one that sees (the focalizer). Rimmon- Kenan

developing further the discussion about “who speaks” and “who sees”, suggests that the verb “see” has a

broaden meaning and it does not only imply the action of seeing something, but rather also includes feelings,

thoughts, dreams, and so on (O'Neil, 1992). In other words, the question of “who sees” is the question of who

perceives inside the story, whose reflections on the events the narrator is presenting to the readers. So, in the

passage reviewed above, the focalization concerns Clarissa’s point of view (focalizer) of the events in the story.

The examples of focalizers in the following sentences demonstrate the cases of an internal focalizer and an

external one respectively; “When he (Jed Parry) heard me (Joe) moving away he got to his feet and came over. He really didn’t want to let me go. (McEwan 2004, pp20)”, Joe Rose is the narrator and as a participant to the

story himself he is an internal character focalizer. “When she steps into the hall, he is waiting for her… He has a

wild look… She associates this look with over- ambitious schemes… (McEwan 2004, pp80)” Here, the focalizer

22

objects. In the narration of the novel however, we mostly experience internal focalization, since the narrator and

the other character’s perspectives as the subjects of focalization, are all participants in the story. Focalization as

a mode of narration, along with the first person narrator, underline the unreliability in narrative and by inserting

the rest of the characters point of view, strengthen the argument of the process of narration as a whole through

which humans gain understanding in life.

Unreliability in Narrative

The aforementioned modes of narration, namely the first-person narrator and the characters’ points of view as

the subject of focalization, develop the notion of unreliability in the narration. Due to the predominant “I” mode

in narrative the events take place remind the reader more of subjective and doubtful opinions of the narrator

since his way of telling the story is the only available source. This kind of narrative is not generally approved

and bears the weakness of the unreliability. Especially due to the post- traumatic nature of this narration which

is derived from memory in great shock and stress levels. Joe, who is the narrator, and a journalist by profession,

has mastered the production of a story and of the possible ways to tell it in order to reach the desired result. This

leads the reader to think of the artificiality in the narrative, and how all this is actually a story which has been

rewritten from subjective perspectives (Genette, 1980). Every character has his one story to tell through Joe’s

narration, hoping that the events will make sense for their own benefit and wellbeing. Thus, in order to make

peace with the horrifying events and with themselves, the characters in the novel need to either deal with their

trauma or to try and distract themselves by being occupied while concentrating in other aspects in their lives.

This is the reason why Joe’s attention is absorbed and devoted in solving Jed Parry’s mystery, why Clarissa by

misreading John Logan’s intentions as loving and carrying attributing them to his parental instinct seems to be

in denial of the peculiarity of his tragic death, and why Jed Parry makes the purpose of his life to recruit Joe in

God’s love. The fact that we follow the narration in the entire novel almost exclusively from Joe’s point of view

creates serious doubts and leads the reader to assume an unreliable narrator.

Continuing the discussion about unreliability, I shall do so in relation to the memory of traumatic events,

which have an important role in McEwan’s novel. Memory is also an angle of vision, which when revisiting,

can bring to the surface new perspectives even of the same narrative. Constructing a story, people insert

meaning into their life justifying their experiences and their choices while through these stories they shape their

identity and reveal themselves to others. Undergoing a traumatic event, the continuity and the meaning of these

stories are shaken resulting in flawed, unavailable, and fragmented versions of the story as opposed to a healthy

narrative process which is coherent and meaningful. Studies that approached the matter structurally emphasize

the form more than its content underlining the relationship between partial recollections and memory capacity of

organization (Tuval-Mashiach, Freedman and Bargai , 2004, pp1-16). Even though memories belong to the

past, the act of remembering and retelling a story, however, belongs to the present (O'Neil, 1992). During the

23

created which are hardly the same to the original story, or to the point of view we had the first time we revisited

that memory. Therefore, memory is an unreliable agent of the narrative process, especially for traumatic

experiences where the person only seems to recall fragments and pieces of the event, failing to construct a

decent and meaningful framework of narrative or focalization.

For example, the balloon accident and John Logan’s death were unpredictable events that had a great impact

on the characters of the novel. Each of them in order to deal with the guilt and the remorse had to create their

own narrative and thus point of view out of memory. Joe Rose is being comforted by being devoted to science

and exhausting himself in a quest of finding the truth and the “bad” guy. Joe wants to achieve this so that he

could tell proudly to himself that he did achieve something worthy in this horrible story. Clarissa Mellon felt

that it was easier for her to think that what had driven John Logan to this madness were bravery, pure love, and

responsibility towards the children as he was a father himself. Jean Logan, in an attempt to ease her pain for her

departed husband, composed her own subconscious narrative according to which, her husband had intimate

relationship with another woman and that he was with her at the time of his death (McEwan, 2004). The

aforementioned arguments are examples of unreliable narration of the various view angles and focalization

points in order for these characters to deal with the pain and the guilt that a traumatic experience can cause.

The reliability or unreliability of the narrator determines what and how the readers perceive about the

characters of the novel and the events of the plot (Bal, 1997). When the narration is in the first person, we follow

one point of view denying that way a more concrete perception of the plot which normally a third person

narrator would offer. This is achieved by excluding the rest of the characters’ points of view. That way readers

doubt about the objectivity of the scientific method in the novel, whether the events depicted in it are real and to

what extent are in relation with pragmatic rationalism. In the following passage narrator’s scientific perspective

is highlighted through his point of view to the event and the vocabulary he chose to describe it not in confidence

but rather in a state of doubt feeling insecure

“… this was the last time I understood anything clearly at all… What we running towards? I don’t think any

of us would ever know fully. It was an enormous balloon filled with helium, that element gas forged from

hydrogen in the nuclear furnace of the stars, first step along the way in the generation of multiplicity and

variety of the matter in the universe, including ourselves and all our thoughts…We were running towards a catastrophe…” (McEwan , 2004, pp3).

Especially in Enduring Love, where the unreliable narrator represents science, then we as readers actually

question the validity of a scientific interpretation not only in the novel but also in life, thus we are driven in

adapting a companied and complex narrative as a way of thinking the events in life.

In this turn of events, it seems more demanding than ever, when we are searching for answers by taking into

consideration different perspectives rather than putting all of our hopes into one discipline’s point of view. That

is to say, that a mere objectivity could be approachable, by combining the perspectives of science, literature and

24

Joe was right all along, that Jed not only exists but that he is an actual threat for him and Clarissa. McEwan

suggests that taking into account in the narrative process a scientific approach is probably accurate and effective

to reach a conclusion, however, he is not authoritarian about the matter, since he puts the protagonist’s scientific

perspective under question and makes him consider giving room for other narratological interpretation as well

through the focalization of the literary and the religious oriented points of view. I believe that the writer rather

prefers to play and intrigue our mind in discovering new paths of thinking, rather than to make a clear dogmatic

statement.

Accordingly, I propose that McEwan considers narrative as a way of thinking rather as an answer. When

recreating the narrative of a story like this, the characters revisit their trauma as a suggested way of perceiving

and understanding the world by relaying in a variant of narratological modes. Furthermore, in order to attribute

some objectivity to the narration, McEwan explores the scientific world with the appendix at the end of his

novel to further support the claims and the argumentation of the novel (McEwan, 2004). For example, in the

appendix, the reader becomes familiar with evident names and research conducted by prominent scientists of

psychology and psychiatry, where they would present their developments on a case study of de Clerambault’s

syndrome, similar to the one McEwan based his story on. Once the book was published, remarkable experts

from various scientific and academic circles initiated a discussion about writer’s capability of approaching a

relatively unknown to him matter and adjusting it with such efficiency to his narrative (Burkeman, 1999).

However, the article published in “The Guardian” reveals that Ian McEwan in an interview admitted that the

appendix part of his novel was not real and that the story of the novel was not build upon scientific facts, but it

rather was the product of his own cleverish and artistic inspiration (Burkeman, 1999). Even though, some

question the authority and the ethical part of claiming that something is real by supporting it through false

scientific discoveries and scientists names, McEwan maintained his right on creation and inspiration even if it

was to enrich the narrative with manufactured details. Closing, this is further revealing, firstly for the

manipulative purposes of a narrative text, and secondly, regarding the reliability within a narration both in an

attempt to attribute some scientific objectivity in his writing but also to show how narrative is used for scientific

purposes in order to deal with life and make amends with our post traumatic reality. Even if something appears

to be a dogmatic perspective that holds the truth, the reader should always consider an open narratological

interpretation.

Closing Remarks

The most important aspect in this chapter is the assumption that both domains each other with science

borrowing from literature the narrative and with literature imitating science’s developments and approaches to

convey its messages to society (Burkeman, 1999). Moreover, both literature and science strive to understand

human nature, with literature being the way of presenting, analyzing, and understanding our world. Such is the

25

The whole novel is constructed on different perspectives and focalization points as a playful process. The writer,

Ian McEwan plays with the minds of his characters and of his readers, as they struggle to cope with what they

perceive as reality. However, this reality is not to take for granted and each of us has to be careful so as not to

lose track of it. The notion of unreliability is prominent throughout the whole novel until the very end. Directing

the story in that way, McEwan almost never allows to the reader’s minds a moment of relaxation. He rather

finds it preferable and creative to provoke thought, just as how the narrator of the story Joe Rose does.

Specifically, McEwan juxtaposes multiple views of love and logic in the novel indicating that none of them is

the ultimate truth since the narrative also implies that looking for a logical relation or answer is not always an

appropriate response. Moreover, the reader should neither exclude other narrative approaches, nor they should

depend exclusively upon an authoritative mode of narrative which might only be on the surface objective. On

that sense, it is preferable to consider several aspects before reaching a conclusion. A combination of the

insights that the various points of view have to offer might prove to be of great efficiency in reader’s journey to

solve the mystery of the novel and in their quest to reach the truth of the narrative process. Nevertheless, readers

should rely on their own authority for creation and for perception and extract their own meaning from a

26

A Cognitive Narratological Approach on Ian McEwan's

Atonement

Opening Remarks

In the previous chapter, I discussed the notion of the unreliable narrator along with selected concepts from formalism theory. In this chapter of the present thesis I aim to approach the unreliability in Ian McEwan’s Atonement by identifying impressions of cognitive narratology in his work. The novel explores the psych-synthesis of the characters and their relationships as they grow in the narration mainly around a childish yet an exceptional lie. Briony Tallis, the protagonist of the novel, a young girl with a wild imagination, witnesses her sister Cecilia getting undressed and diving into the garden cistern under the gaze of their friend Robbie Turner, whose affection towards Cecilia develops gradually. Due to Briony’s misinterpretation of a series of events their lives would change forever. Robbie and Cecilia crossed a line in a way they could have never imagined and fell victims to Briony's childhood fantasy. The latter, being incapable to perceive adults’ world, their way of thinking and living, due to her adolescent mind, after having witnessed the young lovers in a sexual intercourse, she is convinced that she just saw an assault take place with her sister, Cecilia, being Robbie’s victim. During the same night, the whole family experiences another unfortunate incident, where their cousin, Lola, have been sexually assaulted and Briony recognizes in Robbie her cousin’s attacker. Although, she identifies him without doubt to the police forces, however, later on the novel, the reader is being informed that she based her testimony on something that she thinks she saw, a shadow figure which resembles Robbie’s characteristics in her mind. This misinterpretation of events resulted in a lie which costs the separation of Robbie and Cecilia and doom the whole family in a different, bitter future that what they expected. She witnesses unacknowledged mysteries and committed a “crime” from which she did not stop trying to atone for the rest of her life (McEwan 2001).

Many critics and readers consider Atonement to be Ian McEwan's best novel, especially when invoking the vividness and cleverness that characterize the depiction of delicate in nature social angles such as the matters of childhood, love, war, and that of social status. Marketa Michlova in her research discusses a plethora of historical issues depicted in Atonement to conclude that in 1930s in England the bourgeoisie class considers itself to be above morality (Michlova 2008). The novel’s trajectory explores the characters’ feelings and state of cognition, such as shame, atonement, and the hardship of forgiveness. The notion of obsession, which concerned my previous analysis as a dominant concept in the textual environment of McEwan’s Enduring Love, as an element of the narratological unreliability, is also present in Atonement.

27

The selected approach to study this novel is cognitive narratology focusing on the notions of unreliability, and that of narrator, their functionality, and their possible and searchable relation with the theory of narratology. More specifically, the neuro-novel genre is examined as a modern literary genre through social components, science, and narrative. Throughout this study, I aim to demonstrate how the three central characters desperately struggle to maintain the fragile mental state among them. Moreover, I attempt to show how the cognitive approach in narrative attempts to unfold fictional minds’ workings within a story-world, either self-contained in themselves, or with the minds of others by emphasizing on their character structure and experiences.

This approach to fictionality illustrates other aspects of McEwan’s fiction, especially some of its meta-fictional moves. The research question arises from the above theoretical framework which will be analyzed in this chapter. The role of narrative in an attempt to explain and to make sense of the self, and of human relationships, what constitutes an unreliable narrator and its effects on the novel, and how narratological modes are a resource of interpretation, providing a basis for understanding the conduct of ourselves and others within the world. In the novel, techniques, such as the use of a metanarrative level, the flashbacks, the third person narrator that presents a variety of counter- perspectives to the main narration, along with the focalization, as well as the “I” narration, stretch the unreliability of the narrator and the relativity of the truth in the novel.

Research based on mind-narrative connections and relations encompasses not only how stories can be used to

build worlds but also the way in which the act of narrating is a means to extent and improve mind functions for

an enabling and living mind. Briony’s storytelling for instance, the lie and the narrative world-making she

creates, is a product of an unconscious procedure of a young girl’s mind to make sense with an unknown reality,

which for her is the relationships of the grown-ups. Relevant research regards narrative as an object of

interpretation and as an instrument of mind (Scherr 2016). Briony seems to have gain control over the stories

she creates, however, the girl is not fully aware of what counts as reality and what as fiction. According to

Finney, she subconsciously absorbs details of the actual world to incorporate in her fictions as it fits to her own

needs (Finney 2004, pp68-82). In other words, Briony associates real life experiences with the story-world.

Other relevant studies, further their research by pointing on narrative psychological reasoning, or on the

ordinary daily process of narrative that people use in order to understand human relationships, society and

several events that take place in their everyday life and the world they live in (Herman 2009). Moreover, the

discussion includes the question of how world-making stories are able to provide the means for evaluating our

conduct with our own self and also others, while taking into account cognitive psychology’s link and

interpretation in a narratological environment. David Herman inserts the notion of “un-worlding”, where the

reader “de-realizes” the story-world by interpreting it “as a fiction within the fiction” rather as “textual actual world” (Herman 2006, pp452-459). In the metanarrative level of the novel, Briony makes the effort to atone for

her mistake by identifying the offender, and by dismissing the falsely accused Robbie, achieving the process of

“un-worlding”.

28

Cognitive narratology formulated in the late twentieth century and as part of literary criticism considers literature as the natural space of narration (Manfred 1997, pp441-468). The field of cognitive narration expanded further its research horizons when the social and humanities studies engaged the “narrative turn” in the 1970s (Herman 1991). That movement recognized the act of narrating as one of the ways human beings function intellect, as a way of thinking, and as a way of processing reality into experience (Kreiswirth 2005). I will discuss the notion of cognitive narratology in the novel as it is derived from the characters’ level of consciousness, their points of view, and the special features of their personality, such as Briony’s imagination as an acquired capability, and a state of cognition.

McEwan in his novels includes various narratological techniques to portrait his fictional characters. In terms of the narrator, although he frequently favors the “I” narration, as I pointed out in the first chapter, for the analysis of the Enduring Love, in Atonement, however, he writes most of the story in the third-person narrative, enables this way, the reader to enter the consciousness of different characters by presenting their perspectives. In the library scene, for example, the reader follows, firstly, the narrator’s, Briony’s, point of view, and later, he follows Robbie and Cecilia’s perspectives as opposed to the previous one:

-“The scene was so entirely a realization of her (Briony’s) worst fears that she sensed that her over-anxious imagination had projected the figures onto the packed spines of books... Briony stared past Robbie’s shoulder into the terrified eyes of her sister (McEwan 2001, pp123)”, -“Nothing as singular or as important had happened since the day of his birth. She returned his gaze, struck by the sense of her own transformation, and overwhelmed by the beauty in a face which a lifetimes habit had taught her to ignore… Finally he spoke the three simple words that no amount of bad art of bad faith can ever quite cheapen. She repeated them, with exactly the same slight emphasis on the second word, as though she were the one to say them first… She was calling to him, inviting him, murmuring in his ear (McEwan 2001, pp137- 138).”

In addition to this particularly complex narration, Briony’s personality should also be taken into consideration to enlighten this cognitive approach. Briony Tallis is a little girl who wishes to become a writer one day, and who, due to her vast imagination, confuses quite often in her mind, what is real and what is an illusion, as if she lives in a fairytale, or in her favorite childhood books (McEwan 2001). She uses her creative imagination to produce fictional stories, and then she manages to persuade everyone in the house about the actuality of the events in her story. However, there is certain juxtaposition about Briony’s character: on the one hand, she seemingly, keeps everything in a harmonious order in her perfectly organized word, while, on the other hand, her actions result in a great distraction for her family, and for her sister, Cecilia and her relationship with Robbie. Briony’s incapability to understand, and to behave accordingly, to the actual world, and further, to the adults’ world, is to blame for these disturbances. Regardless, Briony’s lies and unreliability, the reader is still misguided due to the innocence of her young age, and to her childish manners. This perspective of her innocence is expressed in the narration through her mother’s, Emily Tallis, words; “Poor darling Briony, the softest little thing, doing her all to entertain her hard-bitten wiry cousins with the play she had written from her heart (Atonement 2001, pp65). During the first and the second chapter it is not clear yet to the reader that Briony is the narrator since she constructs with sincerity her narration. Thus, the unreliable “I” is concealed behind the phenomenological objectivity of the third-person narrative, the revelation of which, takes place at the end of the novel, in the chapter “London, 1999” where Briony signs her writing with her initials, B.T (McEwan 2001).

29

now incorporated various approaches of different scientific fields. Thus, narrative contributes to the study of the phenomenon of narration outside of the realm of literature, with a plethora of theoretical approaches, tools and concepts (Herman 1997, pp1046-1059).

Cognitive narratology, the identification of a certain way of representing reality, as I mentioned above emerged from the field of narratology. It was formed in the attempt to define narrative, as a phenomenon that is not limited to the production of literary texts, and from the recognition of its importance to daily communication. Cognitive storytelling argues that several positions of classical narrative that required the application of common sense should be evaluated with skepticism (Manfred 2005, pp169-178). An example of criticism that the cognitive exercises in classical narratology is that the latter considers narratives as self-sufficient without the need to combine different genres and without the need to be continually revised. Similarly, classical narratology ignores the impact of parallel psychological, social, cultural, and historical contexts (Manfred 2005, pp169-178). McEwan’s writings, however, despite the fact that several research avoid their categorization, I would suggest that they are in a dialogue with classical, modernism and post-modernism features, and with different fields, such as science, psychology, art, sociology, etc. To exemplify, his Atonement reminds Virginia Woolf’s psychoanalytical novels, exploring the relations, and the psyche inner world of the upper middle class of England. Whereas, his Enduring Love and Saturday are in correspondence with a plethora of disciplines since their protagonist are scientists, doctors, or artists and from academic circles. Contemporary narrators, however, also distinguish two phases in the history of narrative studies: firstly the classical narratology (1960 to the early 1980’s), where structuralism and post-structuralism prevails through major theorists such as Todorov, Greimas, Barthes, Genette, Bal etc., who attributed scientifically in the field, and secondly the post-classical period, which without rejections or cancellations of the objectives and with tools and methodologies of the classic narrative, redefines them by enlarging and examining them from multiple points of view (Fludernick , 2007, pp36- 59). To that extent, at the closing section of the novel, the revelation of Briony’s as the narrator, raises a series of questions, in the reader’s mind, regarding the unreliability as the story proceeds, and a discussion about the certainty of what actually, happened. Similarly, developments in cognitive narratology, such as post-classical narratology, provide various ways to investigate Briony’s credibility as a narrator.